[ineffable] Argument7 -by xiaxiaobing

xiaxiaobing919UID: 2606450

7The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.

"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."


In the Clearview newspaper, the editor suggested to vote for Ann Green, the member of the Good Earth Coalition, instead of the current mayor Frank Braun, in order to protect the environment. This suggestion is based on the fact that during the Frank Braun period, the number of factories has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and 25 percent more patients got respiratory illness. This argument is not logically persuasive, however, because it relies on numerous shaky assumptions for which no evidence has been given.

To begin with, the mere fact of more factories and increased air pollution levels, as well as the 25 percent more respiratory illness cannot necessarily indicate that the current council is not protecting the environment. It was entirely possible that the doubled factories are environmental friendly so as not to put much burden on the environment, and the national air pollution has increased much more rapidly than that in Clearview. What's more, the 25 percent more respiratory illness may caused by flu, such as the current H1N1, which never appeared before. If so, the author cannot convince me that the current council is not protecting our environment.

In addition, even if not, the author has not established a strong causal relationship between the deterioration of the environment to the leadership of Frank Braun. As known to all, the powers are not entirely hold by the mayor. If the council determined to develop economic at the expense of environmental pollution, the mayor may have nothing to do but to follow. As a matter of fact, Frank Braun may exert a positive impact to the council to limit the environmental pollution. Thus, we cannot simply generalize that the current situation is caused by the poor leadership of Frank Braun.

Finally, even if Frank Braun is the main cause for the environmental pollution, we cannot expect the improvement by voting to Ann Green just because she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. It might be possible that Ann Green will make the situation even more severe. What's more, in order to improve the current situation, there are many other measurements such as legislation for higher standards of waste emission and enhancement of public awareness to protect the environment.

In conclusion, this argument is logically unsound. If the editor could demonstrate that the cited facts are definitely related to the environmental problems, and the poor leadership of Frank Braun are totally responsible for it, and that voting to Ann Green will be necessary and sufficient to solve this problem, this argument would be much stronger. Without the additional information, however, we will be wary about accepting the editor's suggestion.

8处错误